Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[sedonaman]

By the moral standard and authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Would you impose Catholicism on those of other faiths?

 

[Catholic_Home]

I apologize if this has already been mentioned (I don’t have the time to read through all 52 pages of this thread) but would point you to Pope Leo XIII’s On Socialism. He starts off by referring to socialism as a “deadly plague”. It is not a long piece and very clearly explains the evils of this movement.

As a follow up, I recommend Rerum Novarum, also by Pope Leo XIII.

The Holy Fathers have always addressed social ills in their encyclicals and if you ever have questions, you can easily find answers in their writings.

I cannot help but see the plague of socialism creeping into the Church with the social justic movement. I leave you to ponder that after you’ve read the two forementioned pieces.

 

[sedonaman]

What the Constitution means or does not mean is not up to you to decide. It is decided and determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You are telling me this after lecturing everyone what “promote the general welfare” means?

 

[sedonaman]

I apologize if this has already been mentioned (I don’t have the time to read through all 52 pages of this thread) but would point you to Pope Leo XIII’s On Socialism. He starts off by referring to socialism as a “deadly plague”. It is not a long piece and very clearly explains the evils of this movement.

As a follow up, I recommend Rerum Novarum, also by Pope Leo XIII.

The Holy Fathers have always addressed social ills in their encyclicals and if you ever have questions, you can easily find answers in their writings.

I cannot help but see the plague of socialism creeping into the Church with the social justic movement. I leave you to ponder that after you’ve read the two forementioned pieces.

Note that while the pope was critical of capitalism, he condemned socialism.

 

[CPA2]

On March 9, 1937 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in a radio “fireside chat” (how harmless and cozy) : **“We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.” ** He demonized and usurped the very branch of the government created to interpret and defend the Constitution. He took an oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Because his policies and his opinions were not being supported by the Supreme Court prior to that time, he cut the legs off the very branch he swore to “preserve, protect and defend”.

When asked if the “general welfare” was a grant of power in 1792, James Madison, the primary writer of the The Constitution Of The United States wrote in a letter to Henry Lee: "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once."

George Washington in his Presidential farewell address warned: "Let there be no change in the constitution by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Provide and Promote do not mean OWN.

Very good post! There is no doubt that FDR changed the Constitution by his adoption of the 1928 Socialist platform.

 

[Seeker100]

I apologize if this has already been mentioned (I don’t have the time to read through all 52 pages of this thread) but would point you to Pope Leo XIII’s On Socialism. He starts off by referring to socialism as a “deadly plague”. It is not a long piece and very clearly explains the evils of this movement.

As a follow up, I recommend Rerum Novarum, also by Pope Leo XIII.

The Holy Fathers have always addressed social ills in their encyclicals and if you ever have questions, you can easily find answers in their writings.

I cannot help but see the plague of socialism creeping into the Church with the social justic movement. I leave you to ponder that after you’ve read the two forementioned pieces.

All people are creations of God and are very very precious. No matter what religion says they all deserve to love and be loved. They all deserve the medical attention they need and they all deserve proper education and training so that they can function in society. Let’s not let religion stomp on the life of Jesus in each of these people. Let’s make our Christianity, one that does not supress the Spirit, but instead glorifies our living saviour Jesus Christ.

Let’s serve Jesus in the poor. Let’s do all we can to bring equality in our societies with social programs.

 

[tjm190]

I gave you the quote of Alexander Hamilton which upholds the liberal interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. We can understand what is meant by the term General Welfare by consideration of all of the laws which Congress has passed in order to provide for the general welfare and by consideration of the fact the the US Supreme Court has never once said that any of the laws passed by Congress with a view to promoting the general selfare were unconstitutional. Whether or not you agree with the de facto Congressional interpretation of promoting the general welfare, the fact is that it has already been shown by close examination of the laws passed, that the liberal interpretation is the one which is operational today. Therefore it is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial to base an interpretation of the General Welfare Clause on what laws have been passed in this area by a particular founding father. However, that being said, we still must take note of what the Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said in this regard, and that the opinion of Alexander Hamilton has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The question before us should be and must be, what interpretation is warranted by the de facto laws passed by Congress in the name of the General Welfare Clause and have these laws been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States?

No amount of quotes can show that the authors of the constitution were in favor of taking from the fortunate to help the unfortunate against their will- only actions can.

For example, Thomas Jefferson’s writings would have you believe he was in favor of a very limited nation government. The fact that he made the Louisiana Purchase shows that he was actually in favor of a much larger one.

 

[tjm190]

Let’s serve Jesus in the poor. Let’s do all we can to bring equality in our societies with social programs.

Sounds good! But if someone has no desire to serve the poor, we don’t have the right to force them to.

Private funding for charities is the only Christian solution.

 

[tjm190]

This is your opinion, but as far as I know, there has never been a case in a federal Court, upheld by a decision of the Supreme Court, according to which a law promoting the general welfare has been overturned on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to provide for the General Welfare. Quite the contrary. The General Welfate Clause has been upheld as Constitutional.

You were claiming that the U.S. government is OBLIGATED by the general welfare clause to enact social programs- thus far, all you have attempted to show is that these programs have not been shot down.

 

[ted_ray]

Socialism is remarkable. It always fails, but its adherants keep insisting that the next time it will succeed. It is the best example of that definition of insanity, "trying the same thing over and over but expecting different results. It also represents a government by those who put more effort into keeping others from getting ahead than they do in getting ahead themselves. It is envy in its most extreme expression.

 

[ted_ray]

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: “I’m afraid you’ve got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don’t pretend to be Christians.”

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The United States government has **direct ownership **of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture).
I don;t know of a single case tried by the US Supreme Court which has determined that this **direct ownership ** of land by the United States is unconstitutional.

Do the words Provide, Promote and Own have the same meaning?

No one denies the Government is in possession of things, including land – it was paid for by public monies either through direct payment, wars, or the “Takings Clause” (which restricts what may be reacquired back by requiring “just compensation”). What government may do with land is covered in the Constitution in Article 3 Section 3 and by the Fifth Amendment. As was noted while the government has ownership of about 30% of the total of USA land, most of the remainder is owned by private entities. The Government promoted the use of and provided much land for private ownership by either giving it away or selling it for very little money. The government relinquished ownership.

 

[CPA2]

Sounds good! But if someone has no desire to serve the poor, we don’t have the right to force them to.

Private funding for charities is the only Christian solution.

Amend!

 

[cesmit2]

Well The USSR was socialist and they weren’t exactly nice when it came to freedom of religion, the same is true for almost any communist nation.

Abortion is only morally viable if the mothers life is in danger. Even then it is one life for another.

Have not read through all of the posts yet but I wanted to say that abortion is NEVER morally viable under any circumstance within the Catholic Church.

 

[Seeker100]

Sounds good! But if someone has no desire to serve the poor, we don’t have the right to force them to.

Private funding for charities is the only Christian solution.

We all have a responsibility to our fellow man. The government has full rights to tax people to use the money to benefit the poor through their education and health care needs. This is serving Jesus in the small. It is the government’s obligation, and is a major part of the Christian solution. Lets’s all be part of it!!

Stopping or hindering social programs such as universal health care is turning one’s back on Jesus. Let’s all smile at Jesus and help the poor in our societies.

 

[Seeker100]

Socialism is remarkable. It always fails, but its adherants keep insisting that the next time it will succeed. It is the best example of that definition of insanity, "trying the same thing over and over but expecting different results. It also represents a government by those who put more effort into keeping others from getting ahead than they do in getting ahead themselves. It is envy in its most extreme expression.

Socialism is succeeding very well in Europe and Canada. United States on the other hand without social programs has many of its society left out. With many without health care, and proper education, America squanders its most valuable resource, its people!

American due to its lack of socialism is a dying giant as so many of its people are supressed and thus not able to contribute. Socialism lets everyone contribute to society. Socialism works in Canada and Europe so it will thus work well in the US of A.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The Roman Catholic priests that are truly for God and have not sold out are for socialism. These priests are in all countries and have a heart for bringing justice to the poor.

This is FALSE. The Church is definitively opposed to socialism, friend.

One need not be socialist to bring justice to the poor – one must be charitable. Socialism deadens charity. Socialism CREATES poverty – look at eastern Europe and the USSR until the 1990s, and Cuba today!

Charity is borne out of love, not taxes and coercion. Do not suggest that priests (and others) who oppose socialism are not in favor of helping the poor! I resent that!

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

What you say does not match reality. Canada and the European countries do not have the massive cycle of poverty, ignorance and desperation that so many in Americas have.

Why does United States have so many more social problems than other developed deomocracies? It is because a big segment of their population are left behind and are oppressed by the system instead of helped.

Greed exists everywhere. Socialism which in my defining here is not communism. Socialism in what I am defining here is having government programs to develop and support all of the population so that they call all contribute their potentials to developing their nation and contributing to all mankind.

And what if I would rather give my money to the Church as my “contribution to mankind”? What right does the government have to say that I MUST give money to the government to feed the hungry?

What about people who decide NOT to contribute to their Church beyond the money taken by the government – which will inevitably be whittled down by inefficiency until only pennies on the dollar actually help anyone?

THAT is the injustice of socialism.

Peace,
Dante

 

[cesmit2]

We all have a responsibility to our fellow man. The government has full rights to tax people to use the money to benefit the poor through their education and health care needs. This is serving Jesus in the small. It is the government’s obligation, and is a major part of the Christian solution. Lets’s all be part of it!!

Stopping or hindering social programs such as universal health care is turning one’s back on Jesus. Let’s all smile at Jesus and help the poor in our societies.

Actually, the 16th Amendment to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results is UnConstitutional.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that reads that the government has the authority to provide for anyone’s health care or education. This is not serving Jesus in the small, this is giving a man a fish for a day. If we teach a man to fish - he will eat for a lifetime.

Stopping Universal Healthcare, especially when there are provisions to provide funds for abortions is morally wrong. The USCCB has already stated that they are against Universal Healthcare. You cannot force one to give up a portion of their ability to provide a service to others that cannot afford to pay for said service.

We are all called to toil and labor by God. Why should a hard working citizen have to give up any of their hard earned income to support someone that may well be participating in one of the 7 deadly sins - Sloth. I am all in favor of assisting those who cannot help themselves and I currently do that by supporting our local St Vincent de Paul. I am against any mandate that forces me to give up any portion of my income to the government. Government does nothing right. Pass the Fair tax!

 

[Katrina5]

I believe socialism is bad because, at its very root, it is steeling from one man and giving to another by threat of force and incarceration. It is the cheapest kind of “giving” to another because in wanting socialism you claim that people are so inept at giving themselves that you say only politician can give the people what is right, this however, has not and never will work. The politicians will inevitably use their power for personal gain. The system itself will generously allow for inefficiencies because it is not their money they are spending, how many government programs can you claim to be efficient?

The problem with this whole question is that in any society, there will be people who work for a living, and people who either can’t or won’t work, and must be taken care of by others.

With “Insurance”, whether it is for health, homeowners, auto, etc. there will be people who pay the premiums while some people file claims and others who never file claims. This is called the “risk pool”.

Same with taxes. We pay our taxes, which then are used to take care of “common good” such as streets that we all share, public schools, police and fire protection. I’ve never had a fire, I have no children in public schools, and I don’t balk at paying taxes, because if I have a fire, I can call 911, and those public school educated children may be the healthcare providers I need in the future.

In an Individualist society, a person thinks they can live completely independently of other people, while in reality this is NEVER true.

When people say, “This is mine. I EARNED it. I’m not giving it to anyone who didn’t also work really hard for it.” And then try defining “really hard”. What is hard work for one person is easy for others!

Socialism as an economic structure is taking care of one another, and folks, we are already doing it here in the USA. When the fire truck comes to your house, they don’t ask if you paid your taxes before deciding to let your house burn down, or to put out the fire and save your loved ones.

The confusion comes into the question when you add religion-- will I be forced to give up my beliefs-- and more importantly, corruption in government.

There is one person who is on a weekly news program who has the “I’ve got mine” mentality. He was blessed with a wealthy family, a good education, and a good mind. But he has no consideration for the “unsuccessful” in the world. “Too bad”. He sees our country, and he says this through gritted teeth, as “the successful taking care of the unsuccessful” and he deeply resents it.

I worked as a social worker in public welfare for twenty five years. I saw a lot of suffering, a lot of good people who had fallen on hard times, a lot of liars and cheaters, and some corruption in the political aspects of the job.

We had to go by the rules, thank goodness, because if we determined eligibility by religion, looks, how hard someone had worked or not worked, there would be more sickness, starvation, and death.

I felt like it was a good system that helped people. It also helped landlords, grocers, farmers, and doctors who were on the receiving end of the money, food stamps, rental assistance, and Medicaid. Sounds like a win-win to me? If not for the greed of a few, it would be a near perfect solution.

Ask anyone who is against socialism what they would do if they became disabled, lost their family/support system, lost their home, lost their income or job. Where would you go? Could you be that Tough Individual who needs no one?

By the way, some of those greedy individuals (both recipients and staff) are now serving time in lonely, individual cells, eating food prepared by someone else, not working very ‘hard’, and being taken care of by The Taxpayers.

Another By The Way, we DO know life begins at conception. Look at the DNA of a human zygote and the DNA of a non-human zygote. Maybe I should speak for myself. My life began when I was conceived.